Limitations of .357 Magnum

fxvr5 said:

What ammo?

Does the gun shoot all 5-shot groups that size? If you fired 50 shots, would they all be within 5/8"?

It's one thing to say what group size a gun 'can' shoot with 5 shots, and what it will do with a much larger number of shots, like 50 rounds - which is a much better method for testing accuracy.

Small groups happen by chance, and this is especially true when talking about 5-shot groups. 5-shot groups are a poor measure of a gun's/ammo's actual accuracy, and focusing on the smallest groups is sampling bias.

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/9/25/accuracy-testing-shortcomings-of-the-five-shot-group/

I have a 5-shot group under 1" (0.93") with a S&W M&P45 4.0" barrel. But none of the other 5-shot groups were that small. Ammo was Underwood 230 gr GDHP +P, average speed was 1007 fps.

I also have some mighty big 5-shot groups fired by revolvers.

That's why I've said that accuracy is gun and ammo specific. Because it is.

Click to expand...

Oh please, I've been bench testing handguns since I was a teenager. I'm not going to post a fluke. The article is interesting but 50-shot groups are a laughable idea. If you are able to hold your concentration long enough to consistently place 50rds of 300gr at 1450fps loads and want to pay $200 just to test the accuracy of one load, be my guest. It would laborious, expensive and time-consuming but also a colossal waste. You're not going to win the argument this way anyway because it's not possible. Revolver groups are not going to grow and service auto groups are not going to shrink. Service autos, on average, will never reach the accuracy of a good revolver. Period.

No, I posted that group as a representative example of what one gun 'can' do. Because that thing it does....(310gr WFN handload)



.....it does all the time....(270gr Punch)



.....with just about everything I feed it....(Buffalo Bore 340gr +P+)



Gotta Dan Wesson that does the same thing, except for that one goofy chamber that turned out to be mismachined. (265gr Lehigh copper WFN)

Speaking of .357's, this group is 1.25". It will do better, the 1x pictured is worse than a red dot.

357's won't leave exit wounds like this. Especially not after punching through both shoulders. The 44 left a nearly 1" hole and snapped the blade completely in half on this doe I shot a few years ago.



A 357 will work, especially if you're picky about shots. The 44/45s give you more flexibility and opportunities. I don't get to hunt as often as I'd like so I'm taking every advantage possible.

Edited to add: this doe was shot with a well below max load 44mag 240gr XTP. Nothing particularly fancy.

There is no right or wrong, best or worse, in questions like these. Only probability . Certainly it is probable that the .357 will do a very good job of defending yourself against another human being. No line to draw there IMO. In the woods for the most part the same is true but with perhaps a little less probability with some of the critters that live there. The little less is not much in the capability to kill, but more in the ability to kill quickly.

Your Super Redhawk shoots very well. I'm happy for you.

Why do you select a semi-auto service gun for your comparison? Your Ruger Super Redhawk is not a service gun. Seems like an unfair comparison. Maybe you're trying to say a bone-stock off the shelf semi-auto pistol. That would be a better description of a fair comparison.

My S&W M&P45 that shot the 0.93" group shot the other 5-shot groups pretty well, too. The other three 5-shot groups were 1.12", 1.13" and 2.23". That's pretty darn good shooting for a service gun. Your claim that they don't shoot very well does not seem to apply to this gun with this ammo. It didn't shoot the other ammo I tried that well. Different ammo = different results. I don't have a lot of 5-shot data from service pistols. I generally shoot more shots per group.

I understand what your saying. Revolvers certainly can shoot very well. They can also shoot very poorly. I have some very large groups from my revolvers, 5", 8" and 12". But they don't shoot all the different rounds at that same size. They've also produced some sub 1" groups. But there's nothing magical about them. It depends on what the gun likes.

Speaking of 357s, my Ruger Blackhawk shoots Remington 125 grain SJHPs well. The four 6-shot groups measured 1.17", 1.19", 1.41" and 1.48". But it only shoots that ammo that well. Winchester 158 JSP 6-shot groups measured 1.96", 2.54", 2.74" and 3.31".

You're showing very nice groups from your revolvers. What about the not so nice groups? What size are they? Care to share your examples of larger groups? You don't have to if you don't want to.

My Semi-autos with Kart barrels (installed by me) produce the smallest groups, with 20 rounds under 1" with 9mm and 38 Super. But they don't shoot everything that well, and I have plenty of large groups, too. The point of testing is to see what they like, or don't.

The point of the article is that 5-shot groups are not a very good way to assess accuracy. And it's foolish to expect that every 5-shot group will measure the same. Some will be small, some will be large. That's just reality. I'm not sure you understood that point based on what you wrote.

"Revolver groups are not going to grow . . . " Say what?

"Service autos, on average, will never reach the accuracy of a good revolver. Period." Again with the service auto. And you specify a "good" revolver. You're biasing your criteria. How about an average revolver, that would put it on equal ground with an average semi-auto. If you're precondition is that the revolver has to be above average, then an average semi-auto starts with a disadvantage. You can predict the outcome before you even start.

We both need to keep in mind that these are examples of one or two guns. And there's a lot of guns out there. Some of mine don't shoot very well with whatever I feed them.

I'll just repeat this because it's worth repeating; accuracy is gun and ammo specific.

mnrivrat said:

There is no right or wrong, best or worse, in questions like these. Only probability . Certainly it is probable that the .357 will do a very good job of defending yourself against another human being. No line to draw there IMO. In the woods for the most part the same is true but with perhaps a little less probability with some of the critters that live there. The little less is not much in the capability to kill, but more in the ability to kill quickly.

Click to expand...

I lived in MN for three years or so, and if I still lived there I'd have no problem toting a .357 Mag.

If I hunted (and could get game in range) in the middle of 1000 acres of open field, I would be happy to use the bare minimum for the game I was hunting.

As it is, I don’t. I hunt woods near property lines often and I also hunt some nasty and thick southern swamp woods.

Using “small” stuff may ensure death just as readily as any other cartridge and rifle. How long does it take to ensure that death though?

Don’t give me the shot placement routine. Yeah I know if you shoot it in the dime sized spot in the head it will be DRT with nearly anything.

For me, I can hit where I aim. Shot placement still applies but I am not going to be using the firearm that will only ensure a clean kill if I shoot it in one tiny spot. That is unethical hunting at its worst and if you can help it, should be avoided.

That was just a rant on the modern day trend of finding any excuse to use marginal rounds for hunting.

357 will work but it doesn’t work for me. I require quick kills and I don’t want to handicap myself by not being able to take a frontal shot or more extreme quartering away shots. I also want the option of having all the vital shots available to me. Behind the shoulder, high shoulder, neck and head though I normally never take head and neck shots. Some folks like to think they are some crack shot just because they can make head and neck shots. I guess use what works for you but I like the option of a traditional and higher percentage shoulder area shot with a formidable round for fast bleed out and short or no tracking.

I know this thread is not all about hunting but that is all I would do with a .357 or larger type round.

Well, after 133 posts we have narrowed it down:

1) 357 magnum is not ideal for shooting bears

2) some people think 357 magnum is okay for deer hunting, some people think it isn't

3) 357 is good for SD, plinking, and target shooting

4) ????

Sure larger guns are better at having more power, that's kind of a given.

But the 357 is adequate at woods duty and great for SD. Like I said, if I had to have only one gun, it would be a 357

I find my .357 snubbie transitions well, from pest control, to CC/SD. Great convenience, with ratshot in a couple chambers. You can go into town, then right out on the property,
same gun, same ammo.

Tallball said:

Well, after 133 posts we have narrowed it down:

1) 357 magnum is not ideal for shooting bears

2) some people think 357 magnum is okay for deer hunting, some people think it isn't

3) 357 is good for SD, plinking, and target shooting

4) ????

Click to expand...

I would rephrase that the people who have killed 100's of deer sized game with the 357 magnum or for those who have killed 10-20 deer sized animals don't consider it just "okay."
It is not that those who regularly use a 357 magnum consider it "okay," but they actually have confidence using it.
Big difference between thinking something works versus knowing something works.
I am perfectly fine with those who don't like or those who wouldn't use one.
I want people to shoot what they like, as long as it is legal for hunting, and they are proficient with it.
I only hunt with revolvers some of the time. Most of my hunting is done with single-shot specialty pistols. Many have thought you can't be accurate with it or you can't shoot it as good a a rifleman can shoot his rifle. Whereas I have confidence in them, and have proved that from the bench, comps, and in the field hunting.

Hi...
I own quite a few handguns across the spectrum of calibers and shoot them all regularly.

I carry revolvers when I am hiking and hunting and I think the .357Mag is adequate for self defense against criminals, feral dogs, coyotes and such. It can work for hunting small game(groundhogs and such) and deer at close range out to about 50yards. I know many people can hit targets much further than that but targets aren't living animals that deserve a quick humane kill shot. I don't think the .357Mag can reliably deliver that beyond 50yards on deer sized game.

If I am hiking or hunting where there are black bears I carry a big bore revolver, either .41, .44 or .45Colt. I want a bigger heavier bullet that can penetrate deep into a large black bear. Here in Pennsylvania, black bears are routinely taken that are in the 600-700 pound range and there are dozens taken every year that weigh over 400 pounds.

I don't want to limit myself to a .357Magnum revolver with an upset bear in that weight class. I want a bigger heavier bullet and I personally draw the line at a 215gr, 240gr or 255gr bullet depending on caliber. The heaviest bullet I shoot in .357 is a 180gr HP/XTP and I don't think it is adequate for large black bears.

Tallball said:

Well, after 133 posts we have narrowed it down:

1) 357 magnum is not ideal for shooting bears

2) some people think 357 magnum is okay for deer hunting, some people think it isn't

3) 357 is good for SD, plinking, and target shooting

4) ????

Click to expand...

4) Reloading, 38/357 is easily one of the most common handloaded cartridges, sooo many bullet and powder combinations and power levels to choose and load. Almost endless.

fxvr5 said:

Your Super Redhawk shoots very well. I'm happy for you.

Why do you select a semi-auto service gun for your comparison? Your Ruger Super Redhawk is not a service gun. Seems like an unfair comparison. Maybe you're trying to say a bone-stock off the shelf semi-auto pistol. That would be a better description of a fair comparison.

My S&W M&P45 that shot the 0.93" group shot the other 5-shot groups pretty well, too. The other three 5-shot groups were 1.12", 1.13" and 2.23". That's pretty darn good shooting for a service gun. Your claim that they don't shoot very well does not seem to apply to this gun with this ammo. It didn't shoot the other ammo I tried that well. Different ammo = different results. I don't have a lot of 5-shot data from service pistols. I generally shoot more shots per group.

I understand what your saying. Revolvers certainly can shoot very well. They can also shoot very poorly. I have some very large groups from my revolvers, 5", 8" and 12". But they don't shoot all the different rounds at that same size. They've also produced some sub 1" groups. But there's nothing magical about them. It depends on what the gun likes.

Speaking of 357s, my Ruger Blackhawk shoots Remington 125 grain SJHPs well. The four 6-shot groups measured 1.17", 1.19", 1.41" and 1.48". But it only shoots that ammo that well. Winchester 158 JSP 6-shot groups measured 1.96", 2.54", 2.74" and 3.31".

You're showing very nice groups from your revolvers. What about the not so nice groups? What size are they? Care to share your examples of larger groups? You don't have to if you don't want to.

My Semi-autos with Kart barrels (installed by me) produce the smallest groups, with 20 rounds under 1" with 9mm and 38 Super. But they don't shoot everything that well, and I have plenty of large groups, too. The point of testing is to see what they like, or don't.

The point of the article is that 5-shot groups are not a very good way to assess accuracy. And it's foolish to expect that every 5-shot group will measure the same. Some will be small, some will be large. That's just reality. I'm not sure you understood that point based on what you wrote.

"Revolver groups are not going to grow . . . " Say what?

"Service autos, on average, will never reach the accuracy of a good revolver. Period." Again with the service auto. And you specify a "good" revolver. You're biasing your criteria. How about an average revolver, that would put it on equal ground with an average semi-auto. If you're precondition is that the revolver has to be above average, then an average semi-auto starts with a disadvantage. You can predict the outcome before you even start.

We both need to keep in mind that these are examples of one or two guns. And there's a lot of guns out there. Some of mine don't shoot very well with whatever I feed them.

I'll just repeat this because it's worth repeating; accuracy is gun and ammo specific.

Click to expand...

The SRH is just an example. It happens to be one of few that I have taken pictures of the groups it's printed. I don't make a habit of it. You obviously do not understand that there is nothing special about the SRH, compared to any other revolver. It could've been any Ruger, S&W, Dan Wesson or Colt. If we bring in the FA's or linebored customs, things will change dramatically but I don't consider a $3000 revolver a fair comparison for a $500 auto. If you have an unmodified service auto that shoots 1" groups, that is exceptional but far from the normal. A revolver that shoots 1" groups is common, far more common. I have plenty of them.

I stipulate a "good" revolver to specifically exclude those with issues. Such as those with tight or loose throats, bore constrictions, misalignment or poorly cut forcing cones. Not to just say "any" revolver, or cherry pick only the best examples either. Because there are obviously revolvers that don't shoot worth a crap due to those issues. These are issues that do not affect autos and 'should' not afflict revolvers but modern manufacturing is what it is. I stipulate "service auto" to include everything encompassed by your run of the mill automatic, be it a Glock, HK, Ruger, CZ, Walther, Beretta, 1911, XD, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Guns typically classified as "service autos". This specifically excludes guns I've already mentioned such as Sig P210's and $3000 1911's or anything else that might be considered comparable. Is that not obvious? That's why I've said multiple times now that this is a generalization, not a rigid, hard and fast rule with no exceptions. This is why I specify a "good" revolver and a "service" auto. Intentionally excluding revolvers with issues and autos that have been tightly hand fitted and cost thousands of dollars. I do my best not to speak in absolutes because it rarely applies, there are always exceptions. Because as soon as you say "all revolvers" shoot more accurately than "all autos" the exceptions will come out of the woodwork. Someone will post their Heritage Rough Rider they got for $99 and a picture of a 12" group, or a HiPoint with a 1" group.

Generalization - Taking something specific and applying it more broadly is making a generalization.

I understand the point about five-shot groups, to a point. The "point" is to find what loads shoot accurately, or to see how accurate a given load is. If you can't surmise that in 3-5 five shot groups, 50 won't do you any better. If you honestly think 50-shot groups are the only valid groups, then knock yourself out. I see absolutely no valid reason to test 50-shot groups with every load tried or developed in any given firearm. Load development would take forever. I'm trying real hard not to go overboard in my expression of how stupid that would be or how long my opinion of the article is.

The point I was trying to make is that 50-shot groups aren't going to grow revolver groups and shrink service auto groups to the point that they meet in the middle.

I'm not talking about examples of just one or two guns. I'm talking about a lifetime of testing and reading about others' tests. I didn't just shoot a couple guns last week and come to this conclusion.

fxvr5 said:

I'll just repeat this because it's worth repeating; accuracy is gun and ammo specific.

Click to expand...

But all guns are not equal, or have equal potential. Which should be really obvious.

Works good on prairie dogs too

xphunter said:

It is not that those who regularly use a 357 magnum consider it "okay," but they actually have confidence using it.

Click to expand...

I disagree completely. It's the combined experienced of thousands of hunters and outdoorsmen over the course of several decades who decided it's "okay" for deer. Nothing has changed. Folks that came along in the last few years and deciding it was the best thing since sliced bread making 200yd stunt shots notwithstanding.

Never said it was the best.
It is an option.
It does do the job nicely.

I've been hunting Indiana Whitetail for many years with the 357 Magnum.

6.5in Blackhawk and a Marlin 1894CSS.
180grn XTP's loaded hot! 1400fps and 1700fps respectively.
Never recovered a bullet, no matter what distance or angle.
I blasted through both shoulders of a 200+ pound doe once, I could easily get two fingers into the exit wound (might have blasted some bone out)

This doe was hit with my 180grn XTP from my Marlin. The outcome would have no different if she had been hit with a 44, 454 a 12ga or a Freightliner.
You put a properly loaded 357 where it belongs it will do the job, quickly and humanely.

earlthegoat2 said:

If I hunted (and could get game in range) in the middle of 1000 acres of open field, I would be happy to use the bare minimum for the game I was hunting.

As it is, I don’t. I hunt woods near property lines often and I also hunt some nasty and thick southern swamp woods.

Using “small” stuff may ensure death just as readily as any other cartridge and rifle. How long does it take to ensure that death though?

Don’t give me the shot placement routine. Yeah I know if you shoot it in the dime sized spot in the head it will be DRT with nearly anything.

For me, I can hit where I aim. Shot placement still applies but I am not going to be using the firearm that will only ensure a clean kill if I shoot it in one tiny spot. That is unethical hunting at its worst and if you can help it, should be avoided.

That was just a rant on the modern day trend of finding any excuse to use marginal rounds for hunting.

357 will work but it doesn’t work for me. I require quick kills and I don’t want to handicap myself by not being able to take a frontal shot or more extreme quartering away shots. I also want the option of having all the vital shots available to me. Behind the shoulder, high shoulder, neck and head though I normally never take head and neck shots. Some folks like to think they are some crack shot just because they can make head and neck shots. I guess use what works for you but I like the option of a traditional and higher percentage shoulder area shot with a formidable round for fast bleed out and short or no tracking.

I know this thread is not all about hunting but that is all I would do with a .357 or larger type round.

Click to expand...

I'm with you in that I would....and DID....all my handgun hunting with a 44 for exactly those reasons. More confidence in quartering shots, etc.

I would advise anyone hunting with a 357 revolver to look at it more like a very fast bow. But I've never used it for deer so I might be off on that. A skilled marksman verses himself or herself on the capabilities and limitations of their tools and operates within those limits. I suppose that was the OP's whole point.

357 Terms said:

I've been hunting Indiana Whitetail for many years with the 357 Magnum.

6.5in Blackhawk and a Marlin 1894CSS.
180grn XTP's loaded hot! 1400fps and 1700fps respectively.
Never recovered a bullet, no matter what distance or angle.
I blasted through both shoulders of a 200+ pound doe once, I could easily get two fingers into the exit wound (might have blasted some bone out)
This doe was hit with my 180grn XTP from my Marlin. The outcome would have no different if she had been hit with a 44, 45, a 12ga or a Freightliner.
You put a properly loaded 357 where it belongs it will do the job, quickly and humanely.
View attachment 917981

Click to expand...

The rifles are a great deal faster than the revolvers. Have you had solid success with the pistols?

hossfly said:

The rifles are a great deal faster than the revolvers. Have you had solid success with the pistols?

Click to expand...

Yep, the Blackhawk will throw the same bullet 300fps slower ( see above post )
I limit my range with my "pistol" (revolver)
The Marlin with ghost ring sights is quite easy to shoot accurately (and effectively)
out to a much greater distance.
The Blackhawk would work well at a greater distance than I am capable of shooting accurately.
Not to get caught up in semantics, but the Marlin would be better described as a Carbine than a "rifle".

Semantically speaking you are correct.

I may not be a fan of 357 Mag but I have never though of it as too small or under-powered for deer. You guys must be hunting some tough deer. I killed a few with a 410 slug gun. A 410 slug is like a moderately hot 357 Mag with a very light for caliber bullets and it always seemed to kill my Ohio whitetails just fine.